Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you justify discerning between right and wrong?
This thread is more than likely to get very philosophical very fast, so please justify and/or explain your answers. Trite answers like "because it's common sense" won't cut it.
Me? I think right and wrong are rather arbitrary, and are by no means categorical, absolute, or universal. Why? Because in all of my work in philosophy, universal principals, short of logical truths or tautologies (A = A, for instance), are not demonstrable. In other words, there is no way to prove a universal claim as of yet (again, short of logical claims like "all bachelors are unmarried men"). Unless I'm missing something.
So our notions of right and wrong seem to be socially defined conventions or habits. We agree on principles that make sense (all people are created equal, right to life and liberty), according to society. Some are more practical or make more sense than others, however, that alone doesn't make a society's definition of right and wrong more right or wrong. Why? Because we again have to appeal to something else - "makes more sense," or "is more effective," or "works better," and again we see that we have nothing that makes these claims necessarily right or wrong, good or bad.
So you can see how messy it gets. I'm interested to hear what others think. I expect a lot of religious claims (God commands X), and/or appeals to conscience. Both are fine, but do some work to justify those claims, please.
Though it seems to me that this is just an appeal of another social construction, and is only a commonly agreed upon idea, and is by no means necessary or definitive. In other words, prove it.
Since every individual is part of a society, it makes sense for us to base our notions of right and wrong on social conventions. I think the philosophical search for some definition of right and wrong outside of social convention is doomed to fail because of that.
Maybe there is some evolutionary component to right and wrong and how it relates to the propogation of our DNA. It could be that the Golden Rule is just an expression of a biological imperative as part of living in a society. Maybe it is entirely created by social convention, and almost hard-wired into us as humans. Maybe there is a deity that has established rules for right and wrong as part of the fabric of the universe.
It could also be that we as humans find it difficult to truly define what is right and wrong without relying on vague statements because it is something we feel without being able to express it in words. It could transcend the labeling that is necessary when you use words to describe something. Describing a feeling or emotion is only done through metaphor, and there just may not be things in the human experience that clearly relate to the idea of right and wrong. You know it when you see it, but you can't define it.
That's why I have a religous perspective toward it. It transcends human experience and it transcends the ability of even the smartest human to define it. Just like love, or beauty, or joy. We all know what it is, but we all fail when we attempt to describe it with words. That, to me, is one of the reasons that I am a person of faith.
Well, to keep a nation intact, it is necessary to have rules governing basic moral conduct. It used to be we based our actions and values on Christian tenets, the majority in this country still do. Even though I am not a big church goer, I was raised that way, still works for me, so that is what I go by. And is the case for many still, who are brought up with codes of conduct based on Judeo-Christian model.
The adolescent mind, though, rebels at words like "rules" and "government" and "morals". Just seems there are too many "adolescents" out there, in their 30s, 40s, and beyond. The irony is they are products of the "government" run schools, who have failed them. Most manage to overcome the deleterious effects of the public school system, to become decent and productive citizens. And most likely any good values they learned were instilled in them before they entered the school system--in the home.
Horrible standard, unless you enjoy being taken advantage of. From much experimental evidence, one would be better off in shifting immediately to the Silver Rule...do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you.
I go with my internal feelings first, but then try to apply non emotional rational to see if my internal feelings are correct or not. Not always easy since most people tend to stick to their first impression and simply defend it and look for support in defending it. I think everybody is a product of their own environment and upbringing, and that its hard to expect 2 people from totally opposite environments have a ton of common points.
The one and only reason I come to this forum to butt heads with all the lefties and far righties is that every great once in a while I actually change my opinion, or at least modify my opinion because I've gained some knowledge that I previously had either not run into or not paid attention to. I think this forum puts a personal value on many opinions, one that is hard to get when reading a book or article. A book or article is always a passive form of gaining knowledge, here it is interactive.
Well, to keep a nation intact, it is necessary to have rules governing basic moral conduct. It used to be we based our actions and values on Christian tenets, the majority in this country still do. Even though I am not a big church goer, I was raised that way, still works for me, so that is what I go by. And is the case for many still, who are brought up with codes of conduct based on Judeo-Christian model.
The adolescent mind, though, rebels at words like "rules" and "government" and "morals". Just seems there are too many "adolescents" out there, in their 30s, 40s, and beyond. The irony is they are products of the "government" run schools, who have failed them. Most manage to overcome the deleterious effects of the public school system, to become decent and productive citizens. And most likely any good values they learned were instilled in them before they entered the school system--in the home.
I like this post. I agree with the "old adolescents" point. In fact, I'm 59, and in many ways, continue to see conservative/liberal disagreements as "stuffy old adults" arguing with "idealistic, impractical adolescents". Simplistic, I know, but it serves a broad purpose in defining where we're "coming from".
I don't have any huge insightful knowledge, but I have rambled at length on this forum on "culture", and my belief that culture is "everything", that without our culture, America would be no different from Russia, China, Mexico, or anywhere else, and that neither we, nor anyone else, can ever truly become multicultural, because cultures, by definition, are mutually exclusive and incompatible. One will dominate the others, period. I admit that here in the US, I hope the dominant one is "ours"....western liberal secular society, rooted in an underlying Judeo-Christian sense of morality.
I have to go on record as saying I think our sense of "right and wrong" is largely based on our Judeo-Christian roots. These are the roots upon which this nation was founded, annoying though this may now sound to some. This unique culture, which advocates freedom for all, would not have been possible had this country beem founded by Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Mormons, or even my OWN group, Catholics. Only under the very odd little group of very religious, yet very secular-thinking English protestants who DID found this country, would such "freedom of conscience" have been tolerated, or even conceived--and ironically, it's this very freedom that now causes us such turmoil and controversy in our complex modern life.
I find it hard to conceive of any hard-and-fast sense of right-and-wrong that doesn't somehow find its base in some sort of religious belief---and here, that would be the Judeo-Christian tradition. Like it or not, that group, SO FAR, has been the main source of what little decency and freedoms have been enjoyed over the long and brutal history of mankind around the world. Most cultures look out and take care of their societies "winners"---but relatively few include caring for the "losers" among them, the way we do.
Other traditions, too, are capable of decency, but generally don't have that mandate to include "others" like we do. And today, even fair and decent-minded atheists and agnostics, here in the USA, are usually the product of a family, or a group, whose roots (and sense of morality) lie in the western, Judeo-Christian culture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
